NOM BLOG

Mitt Romney on 9th Circuit: Decision "Does Not End This Fight"

 

A statement from Mitt Romney on his campaign website:

Mitt Romney made the following statement regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional:

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

17 Comments

  1. Zack
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Nice mitt.

  2. kostas
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    I am sorry to so often hear the expression 'unelected judges." The fact is that the judges are in their positions totally under the applicable provisions of the US Constitution. The judiciary is one of the three CO-Equal branches of government. Romney vows that the decision will be taken to the US Supreme Court (also unelected). This is our American system.

  3. Ash
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Mitt is my favorite candidate.

  4. Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    It is not for our judges to legislate from the bench.

  5. M. Jones
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    I worry Mitt will change his mind (again) once he is sworn in. I know where Rick stands, this pseudo marriage movement will end on day 1 President Santorum takes the oath.

  6. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    There's no bigger Chameleon than Mitt. He will say anything to pander to the sub classes. And they're not bright enoug to know.

  7. james2
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Unelected judges? Well, yeah! That's what the US Constitution REQUIRES! Hey, are there any conservatives out there who still support the US Constitution? I wonder.

  8. John Noe
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    This is what makes Presidential elections so important. Although we have unelected judges it is the elected President that appoints them.
    If Obama wins another term look for him to appoint more of these looney unelected judges to the bench. The future makeup of the court hangs in these elections. Why do you think the homosexual activists like Obama and these judges. They now they cannot win at the ballot box fair and square. So they need to lie and cheat by getting unelected judges to overturn the lawfull vote of we the people.

  9. james2
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    It's never a good idea to vote on the legal rights of a minority. Thank goodness our system has judges to protect minority groups!

  10. Johnny
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    The homosexuals really need to get off this "equality" thing. Sex between men spreads AIDS, period and I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

  11. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Johnny, HIV can be and is spread by heterosexuals as well. All you've proved is your lack of knowledge on this subject. And NOM should be ashamed to allow these gratuitous gay-bashing posts to stick.

  12. AM
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    'It's never a good idea to vote on the legal rights of a minority"

    Our Constitutional Republic allows for a democratic majority to make laws while respecting individual rights.
    The SCOTUS has not determined any individual right to marry whomever you please.

  13. Leviticus
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    America needs legislation to put federal judges up for election and limit federal judges to four-year terms. I believe we will see that with a Rick Santorum presidency.

  14. Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    the protections of the Constitution bind courts as much as the states and Congress. A court can not, absent satisfying strict scrutiny, forbid criticism of the government nor racially segregate public schools. It can not order cruel and unusual punishment (or must at least indefinitely stay such punishment if it sentences a convict to cruel and unusual punishment). Without at least a rational basis, it can not refuse to protect its homosexuals employees from sexual orientation discrimination, if such protection is available to heterosexual employees.

    Could Congress pass a law mandating Florida, and only Florida, to recognize same-sex “marriage” and issue marriage licenses to persons who wish to “marry” others of the same sex? What would be the rational basis? Is it because Florida does not recognize marriage “equality”? Then why are none of the other states without this “equality” not covered? Is it because Florida bans civil unions, thus foreclosing even any mitigation of any inequality? Then why were not Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska covered? Frankly, I think both the ADF and GLAD would find such a law contemptible. It would discriminate against the state of Florida, and it would discriminate against persons outside of Florida.

    And a court ruling to this same effect should be equally contemptible.

  15. Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Thank goodness our system has judges to protect minority groups!

    But apparently not those in Idaho or Montana.

  16. M. Jones
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    Its time these unelected judges are held accountable to people, to American values and our cherished institutions. We can see the dangers of legislators who dawn robes, and yet are not accountable to the people. They need to be reminded to read the constitution.

  17. yoshi
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    @M. Jones

    "They need to be reminded to read the constitution."

    Its clear you have no idea what our Constitution says.

    Point out where marriage is defined in the Constitution? While you are at it - read up on how Federal Judges are appointed and their term of office.

    Once you complete that homework - read up as to why that is. I'll give you a clue - its to prevent the silliness of the majority from running rampant.